Access Group: “$4.75 Cancer Detection Device co. could got to $196”

This one comes in from what looks to be a new newsletter service called “The Access Group” that will run you $2,750 a year. Phew. This is a service that they claim will enable individual investors to get access to the kind of research hedge fund companies used to pay these analysts $30,000 a year for. So I guess you should be ever-so-thankful for the bargain, eh?

And as with so many of these types of teasers that I love, they’ve got a tight limit on the number of subscribers just to give you an extra impetus to get hot and bothered about signing up NOW before all 475 spots are taken! Quick!

The service is run by Marc Lichtenfeld, a former analyst who also used to write for TheStreet.com, though I don’t know that he does so anymore. It’s affiliated with Mt. Vernon Research, which is part of the massive group of Baltimore financial publishers centered around Agora.

As soon as you sign up, they’ll send you the report about this little skin cancer detection device maker that is hoping for FDA approval soon. Or if you prefer, you can just read on, find out the name of the company, and make your own research report, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood Stock Gumshoe.

So … I’ve already told you that the touters believe this to be an opportunity to make 10X or 40X your money, and that it’s a small company that makes a medical device that’s designed to detect skin cancer. What else do we know?

There’s an early investor, well known for picking good small cap potential … in their words,

“One of Wall Street’s ‘Start-Up’ Legends Is In On The Action … In fact, this gentleman started one of the first investment houses on Wall Street to focus exclusively on small-cap firms and start-ups. He and his partners launched the company with a $100,000 budget back in 1959 … In 2000, the company sold to Credit Suisse First Boston for $13.4 billion!”

So one thing we know for sure is that he’s really, really rich. And the ad says that he’s inviting his richie rich friends to get in on the action, because the one thing all copywriters know is that individual investors don’t trust the Wall Street muckety mucks and believe they’re all conspiring to profit at our expense and scratch each others’ backs. Which isn’t to say that’s not true.

That’s one big investor. What do we know about the company?

“… in a study of 352 lesions, this company’s device correctly identified all 28 cancers. And in all tests so far, the company’s device has correctly diagnosed cancer in 98% of the cases, compared to the 60% to 70% rate doctors are able to identify the disease using the ABCDE method.”

OK, 98% sounds pretty good. And it’s skin cancer, so we know it’s non-invasive. It’s a fancy camera/light thingamabob that looks like a Shaper Image handheld massager, though they use words that are a far sight more impressive than “thingamabob.” And they describe it as being similar in look to a “hair dryer”, though I’ve never seen a hair dryer quite like this. No need to quibble or start a great hair dryer/massager debate, however. I’ll stipulate that either one is a fine size and shape for cancer detection devices.

The ad tells us that doctors love the device, and they do several “what ifs” about how successful this would be if 10% of dermatology offices bought these, or what would happen if other specialists or general practicioners started buying them. The device is apparently going to be priced at about $2,500, which isn’t terribly expensive, and they believe that they’ll make most of their money by selling the individual memory cards that will be required for each patient.

So … this is a handheld cancer detection device, which effectively takes a super-fancy 3D photo of skin lesions, records that data on proprietary memory cards that are patient-specific, and compares it to their library of skin cancer pics to see what the likelihood is that this particular lesion is cancerous or worthy of aggressive treatment.

Here’s an excerpt about how they build the case for the valuation from the current $4.75 to a potential $196 a share:

“… based on very conservative sales of $240 million – and profit margins of even half of the projected 15% – this little company could soon be earning $1.20 a share or more. Using average industry price to earnings that translates to $59 a share – a long way from today’s price of around $4.75. And that’s just the short-term potential…

“What happens when this company’s machine finds its way into just a third of the country’s dermatologists’ offices – and revenues top $825 million? $4.75 to $196 a Share? It’s All-Together Possible.

“That’s when things really get fun. Based on the same, very conservative, 7.5% profit margin… and very conservative PE ratios… we’re looking at a share price for this company that could very well eclipse the $196 mark…”

Not bad, eh? So what is this “Hyper-Growth Stock”

The Thinkolator pulses and churns, and the Gumshoe can reveal to you, for far less than $2,750, that this stock is …

Electro-Optical Sciences (MELA)

Cute ticker, eh? The MELA is for their product, which they call MelaFind. They have a little video of the product on their website so you can jump in on the great massager/hair dryer debate if you like. They also have lots of info up there, including some presentations, if you want to understand the company’s idea of it’s own potential. There are a couple newsy articles on MELA at seekingalpha that might be worth a look. There are actually a few analysts who cover this one, too, a bit unusual for a sub-$100 million firm, and they all think you should buy it (their target prices are a bit more modest than the newsletter’s, between $8 and $12, but still a substantial gain from here).

The fact sheet from the company’s Investor Relations folks is here (pdf file).

Oh, and the Wall Street bigwig who owns shares? That must be Dan Lufkin, of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette, which was the small cap investment bank bought out by CSFB in 2000. He is a Director of the company, and has picked up 330,000 shares or so — the most recent lump of which was bought on the open market last fall at prices between $4 and $6. Bonanza Capital, a hedge fund, is also a very larger holder of the stock, and though insiders have been heavy buyers of late with no recent selling, the institutions as a whole have been selling the shares over the last quarter. It’s not very widely held among institutions, as you might guess from the fact that it’s a tiny health care technology stock.

Part of the teaser is that you can get in on a special conference call with the company that’s scheduled for April 7, but clearly the recommendation is out there now — the shares popped 25% today, so they’re now right around $6, not $4.75. Your humble Gumshoe servant apologizes for not taking a look in time for you to get in on that little run — but really, if you believe that it’s going to $196 let’s not quibble about $1.25. And if this is like other tiny heavily hyped stocks, there’s every chance that it will come back from today’s bump (or that the mighty rising tide of Gumshoe readers will push it up even further, who knows?)

The shares have bounced around a bit over the last couple years between four and seven dollars as various bits of promise and hype emerged — will this be the chance for the stock to break out, or is it just another bump on a newsletter recommendation? There appears to be no actual news on the company of late, though they did an investment conference presentation last week. The pivotal trial is supposed to be complete in the first half of this year, so sometime in the next three months, and application to the FDA would be almost immediately following that (assuming continued good results).

So, pop quiz, what is the one thing we should ask when we’re presented with a compelling argument about a tiny company that meets a pressing need?

That’s right, “who else meets this need?”

I haven’t slogged my way through all the financials, but I’m happy to stipulate that this product and company have compelling potential and may be worth more research. But I have done some quick browsing for other skin cancer detection devices, and I have no way of knowing how important this particular device will be in the vast realm of skin cancer devices, from the SolarScan to a simple lighted magnifying glass to the Clarity Pro system that tells you if you’re going to be at risk from UV exposure. And that doesn’t count the huge number of other digital imaging and microchip companies that believe their products might be useful in this area — even STMicro, which I’ve written about before, thinks one of their digital imaging chips might be good at helping to identify skin cancer, and academic research in this general area appears to be pretty active. I also have no idea what the patent portfolio of Electro-Optical is, so if this is a great product I don’t know how defensible their niche is — comparing an image to a library of skin cancer images to make diagnoses makes a great deal of sense (at least, to someone like me who knows nothing about the medicine), but if other folks can do something similar it won’t provide much of an advantage for long.

That’s not to say that this isn’t a groundbreaking concept or product, or that it won’t save lives. I just don’t have any idea whether the product can capture 1% of the market, or 10%, or 90% … and if I were going to invest my money in it, I’d like to know more. I do like the business model, since the most profitable strategy for medical devices in general seems to be the “razor and blade” concept where you build a base of users that have to come back and use lots and lots and lots of your disposable or near-disposable accessories, add-ons or, in this case, memory cards. That’s what brought Gillette to the forefront, but more recently it’s also what has allowed Intuitive Surgical to build a massive market cap in a relatively short time.

So … skin cancer is bad and very common, this thing detects it, they have a good business model, and apparently their product works (so far). Is that enough for you? If you dig deeper, let us know.

full disclosure: I own shares of Intuitive Surgical. I do not own shares of any other company mentioned, and will not trade in any stock mentioned for at least three days.

I can say that I know this company fairly well and it is an interesting device. However, it remains to be seen if it will clear FDA. Remember, the way the trial is set up, if they miss one melanoma, they fail. In the event that this happens, the company has sponsored Reader studies as a 2nd chance to basically say that even if they miss one, their machine is still better than having nothing at all but the human eye. This may or may not fly by the FDA because, everyone already knows that visualization is not always accurate.… Read more »

Thanks Seve — I appreciate the comments, it’s very helpful to hear from someone who understand the company and their business a little better than I do. Very good point about liability for missed lesions, or fear of liability. It’s also always risky to bet on a machine that’s saying it can replace a specialist — and they don’t say that’s what they’re doing, but essentially they’re saying that their imaging system can do a better job than a dermatologist with a magnifying glass. How are the dermatologists going to feel about that if it means non-specialists or inexperienced doctors… Read more »

As a physician very familiar with skin lesions, I would not risk my malpractice on this device. If the device/database says it’s cancer and I do too, it’s not worth it. However, if it’s not cancer, more specifically melanoma (the most deadly and worrisome skin cancer), per the device/database, and I still think it’s too suspicious…guess what?? I’m going to encourage the patient to either: (1) have it removed or at least biopsied (where only part of the lesion is removed) for microscopic analysis, or (2) get a second opinion from a dermatologist.

Dr. Magggd, thanks very much for your comments — I can’t imagine what it must be like to be a doctor these days with constant malpractice fears, but that’s a very good perspective on this particular business, and I guess it’s something we should be thinking about with any medical company.

I actually think the product is very interesting because it can see a lesion in wave lengths that the human eye can’t see and then uses object recognition to identify a potentially cancerous one in one of the non-visible wave lengths.

The other interesting thing going on is a partnership with L’Oreal to develope a machine that analyzes non-cancerous lesions. L’Oreal has different varieties of creams to treat lesions. You could envision this machine at every retail cosmetic location that could tell someone which particular cream would work with the specific lesion.

I’ve done work with Mr. Lufkin. He is personally quite involved in skin cancer and has done other deals where we’ve worked together. The one we worked on (he was an investor) did not pan out. I also know Breau Castleman who was a well regarded executive though our paths haven’t crossed in perhaps 10 years. I’d argue even just these 2 individuals lend significant cred to the company.

Bottom line: would you want your dermatologist to use this device to check your skin? I would as a double check device. My dermatologist works fast, has a big practice, and has to be guided by myself to areas he’s missed. So any device that adds to further proactive treatment seems desirable.

And of course the other bottom line: how good is the scanner? What are the credentials of the developers. What’s the science? We’re all too interested in the stock price. Is there really something there???? hp

I’ve been studying this company a great deal, and although I am a skeptic (and love this website), I have learned a great deal about skin cancer. The company’s website is not a great source of information yet (eosciencs.com) but the Seeking Alpha website has an interesting video of the MELA CEO talking about the A,B,C,D or skin cancer that his detector and software, analyzes. It’s 24 minutes long, and I found interesting.

MELA has already passed Phase III testing and the FDA has said they will fast track the application as soon as it is received. Company has been delaying submission of the application while they ramp up production in anticipation of speedy approval. If you go to Yahoo/Finance and enter the stock symbol you will find articles that report on the Phase III test results. MELA outperformed a panel of the leading dermatologists in the country according to the report. Readers have been focusing on 2% failure to detect rate (Phase III success rate was 99%) and it turns out that… Read more »

I am glad that they passed the mustard on the test. I suspected that they would but it was too binary for my blood. The risks that this puppy metastsizes is very high as it is for all companies that have to make the transition from a research project to an operating company–especially when you have a Doctor running the show. It is also interesting to note that they do not intend to pursue a CPT code. They will solely be targeting private pay. The 64 thousand dollar question is is, will a derm patient pay an extra $100 or… Read more »

Newsletters in This Article

Healthcare-focused newsletter, recommended stocks primarily of emerging device and biotech companies. Was helmed by Marc Lichtenfeld, who moved on to other publications, but stopped publishing after a short while -- Lightning Trend Trader, a current publication of Lichtenfeld's with The Oxford Club, sometimes covers biotech stocks.

ID’ing Cabot’s teased “#1 top dividend stock recommendation”

What’s this “Living Software” Business from Dylan Jovine?

This site and Stock Gumshoe publications and authors do not offer individual financial, investment, medical or other advice.
Nothing on this site should ever be considered to be personal advice, research or an invitation to buy or sell any securities. We also make mistakes and bad decisions sometimes, and our reasoning or data should be checked against trusted sources before they inform your investing decisions. Choices regarding how to invest your money or otherwise manage your life or finances are yours, we share only our analysis and opinion and all
authors or commenters are individually responsible for the words and opinions they share here. Please read our important disclaimers and policies. Stock Gumshoe is supported by subscribers and by sponsors and advertisers. Stock Gumshoe's employee authors will disclose holdings in any stock covered at time of publication and will not trade in any stocks written about for at least three days after publication. Please see below for complete disclosure, disclaimer and policy information.